Firecracker Errata

[SCME500]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I love Firecracker (just started using GT and so had no problems ditching the account due to migration issues).

Here is the problem: I used Firecracker rather extensively in the past couple of days and find an appalling number of errata. Most of them are trivial things that can be ignored such as "scintigraphy" spelled "scintography" with occasional inaccuracies (also pointed out by other users).

I would appreciate if senior guys from Firecracker do some butt kicking and don't wait till users get back to FC with errata they noticed as there are way, way too many of them. The problem is that I am beginning to wonder if I can trust the factual information in a product that is riddled with errata and whether the FC is trustworthy enough to spend so much of my time with.

Thanks.

 

[unsung]

The basic science sections are noticeably better than the clinical rotations (step 2) sessions at the moment. I used GT back in the day for Step 1 & the content is largely the same, except with expanded content (anatomy, etc.). So if you are primarily studying for Step 1, it shouldn't be a big problem.

The quality of the Step 2 content is very variable, at the moment. It's noticeable some sections are excellent (psychiatry), whereas some like pediatrics or emergency med is clearly written by different authors. The styles of Qs are very different... some notecards need a lot more Qs, while others have redundant and less useful Qs.

I am not complaining however, since I will take what I can get 😉. I think in the haste to push out Firecracker, there are some noticeable blemishes- more spelling errors, inconsistent # of Qs, etc. It will only get better with time. I still find the content helpful, even in its current state.